Most historically inaccurate movie?

I know that a movie's purpose is to entertain, and that we should all just suspend our disbelief and just let the inevitable errors go. There are some movies, however, that are so grotesquely inaccurate, they make you grind your teeth. Which are your picks and why?

Pearl Harbor

- The chick says she lied about her age (she was 17) to become a Navy nurse. Nurses are required to become state-certified first, before they join the Navy. There was no way she could have become accredited.
- Active US Army, Navy, or Marine pilots could not fight in the Battle of Britain. They would have needed to resign their commissions first and then enlist via Canada.
- Why the hell are Navy nurses giving eye exams to Army Air Corps pilots?
- What in the flying frak are single-engine P-40 fighter pilots doing, flying multi-engine B-25 tactical bombers?
- If returning Japanese planes are flying west from Pearl Harbor, why is the setting sun BEHIND THEM?

Braveheart

- Scots did NOT paint themselves blue.
- William Wallace was NOT a simple farmer. He was a lord.
- He didn't go into battle wearing nothing but leather armor. As a lord, he would have at least been wearing chain mail.
- Stirling Bridge was a Scots victory, but the English army wasn't annihilated. After the vanguard was defeated, the English simply walked away.

The Patriot - %$*#@!!! No, no, NO! All wrong!

Well Braveheart WAS a good film and I can still sit down and enjoy it now. Historically they took quite a few liberties (Artistic Licence is what I believe they call it). I can see three things you have missed off your Braveheart list.

1) They forgot the Bridge for the Battle of Stirling Bridge.

2) Making the assumption that Wallace had fathered Edward III gave me a chuckle as first off Edward III was born 7 years after Wallace was killed and Edward II's wife (Isabella of France) was only 11 years old at the time of Wallace's Death.

3) The film should never have been called Braveheart in the first place. Braveheart was the nickname of Robert de Bruce and not Wallace. IIRC it may have been Bobby Burns or Blind Harry who actually changed the name over to Wallace but whoever it was they were wrong.

All in all I do love the film. All I recommend is that Hollywood should have a disclaimer at the start of their history flicks that goes further than the words "Based On". How many people watch Braveheart and think they know of the history of this period now? It's a joke for them to do so but I do not begrudge Hollywood getting people interested in History (As long as they go further than the film and pick up a book).

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Disclaimer - By book I DO NOT MEAN A NOVEL

Originally Posted by IronBrig4

Active US Army, Navy, or Marine pilots could not fight in the Battle of Britain. They would have needed to resign their commissions first and then enlist via Canada.

You know as well as I do that they had to simplify how an American can get over to Britain to fight the BoB. So he can fight off the British Reich and their Luttwaffe Royal airforce under the command of sir/herr Winston Hitler.

Oh and don't get me started on U-571. Put it in the same category as the Patriot before I get either upset or angry and throw my comp out the door and down the stairs.

Originally Posted by William the Bastard

Well Braveheart WAS a good film and I can still sit down and enjoy it now. Historically they took quite a few liberties (Artistic Licence is what I believe they call it). I can see three things you have missed off your Braveheart list.

1) They forgot the Bridge for the Battle of Stirling Bridge.

Yeah, that's the most ironic thing about the whole movie. I still agree with you that it was a good watch but they should have at least recruited their historians from a a primary school, getting them from a tavern was a bad idea.

Originally Posted by William the Bastard

2) Making the assumption that Wallace had fathered Edward III gave me a chuckle as first off Edward III was born 7 years after Wallace was killed and Edward II's wife (Isabella of France) was only 11 years old at the time of Wallace's Death.

Maybe historians got the date of Edward III's birthday wrong and Wallace did, in fact, pull off a Mohammad on Isabella of France?

How is Alexander historically inaccurate?

Troy. Everything about it is wrong. It just tries to finish the film, not follow the story.

Originally Posted by RandomRockFan

Troy. Everything about it is wrong. It just tries to finish the film, not follow the story.

Well it's based on an ancient story involving gods and invincible heroes so the movie is probably more historically accurate than homers story.

300. Obviously stripbook fiction, but still dangerous as its portrayal strengthens racial prejudices towards 'Eastern' people.

I haven't seen U-571 yet. People tell me that I'll probably suffer an attack of apoplexy if I ever watch it.

Originally Posted by Marcus Scaurus

300. Obviously stripbook fiction, but still dangerous as its portrayal strengthens racial prejudices towards 'Eastern' people.

It's a film based on a comic.

Which is in itself a Spartan recount of what happened.

I.E it's Spartan propaganda.

And we can see this from the fact that it is a Spartan telling us this tale.

And propaganda isn't exactly balanced, now is it?
------
The only film I can mention, that hasn't been mentioned before is Zulu, but I like Zulu. It's a good film, despite the mistakes.

But War films are always wrong, it's a given.

Originally Posted by Marcus Scaurus

300. Obviously stripbook fiction, but still dangerous as its portrayal strengthens racial prejudices towards 'Eastern' people.

Why are you taking it so seriously and looking for meanings that aren't there?

Pathfinder.

Native American's spoke English.

Viking swords looked like this.. http://www.replicadungeon.com/pathfinder-sword.html

Viking helmets had horns.

Vikings were hairier than most modern grizzly bears..

Thats not even a fraction of them..

Kingdom of Heaven (though i like it, the real could be really BORING)
Balian is the same age as Godfrey in real terms
Balian did not knighted people EN MASSE
Baldwin did not have a mask in him
to name a few (teutons made an appearance by the way)
Alexander (you do it, somehow even if oliver stone made i can't find any fault iwas BLINDED by that Gaugamela scene it look so RTW )

Originally Posted by Lord Comnenus

Kingdom of Heaven (though i like it, the real could be really BORING)

Yep. What irked me most about Kingdom of Heaven was the "We must have a happy ending" syndrome that all Hollywood films need to have. They did make a note of the peoples of Jerusalem being freed and not massacred as they had by Christian forces in 1099 but when I saw that Sybilla went along with Balian to France I laughed my tits off. That she stayed in the Holy Land and dedicated to Guy matters not.

Also the Lion Heart should have spoken French.

@ IronBrig - You should still see U-571. It is a great film but what is really disgusting, to us Brits, was to change the nationality of the entire crew from British to American. I know it brings up those words I hate of "Based on" but it really does take the piss. Here is a link to what it was based on. LINK. Might as well say the Americans won the battle of Britain single handed. Oh scrap that Hollywood has already tried it .

Alexander was a bad film but Gaugamela saved it a little. TBH I don't believe they could have made a decent film on Alexander had they not given it the Lord of the Rings treatment. The man had too many things happen in his life to miss parts out. No mention of Granicus, Issus, Sieges of Tyre and Halicarnassus, No Gordion knot (Although that is debatable as to whether it happened or not. It would have made a good scene if done properly), No Persian gates or burning of Persepolis and they also coud have involved the battle of Chaeronea when Alexander was 18. All in all they ruined what could have been a fantastic film and storyline by doing it on the cheap. I say cheap but that is only in comparison to the amount of money needed to make a proper good job of the film.

Originally Posted by William the Bastard

Also the Lion Heart should have spoken French.

Yeah, and what's up with the English hero thing?
There's a statue of him. Not very English at all nor spent time there.

Originally Posted by NaptownKnight

Kelly's Heroes, although the movie was meant to be funny instead of serious.

While you're at it, I say The Eagle has Landed.

Honestly Alexander was pretty impressive in that respect.

Except for the fact ol' Al was shot in the chest by an arrow while storming up a city wall in India, not drive-by'ed by an elephant.

Originally Posted by The Sword of Cao Cao

Honestly Alexander was pretty impressive in that respect.

Except for the fact ol' Al was shot in the chest by an arrow while storming up a city wall in India, not drive-by'ed by an elephant.

Well in the movie he got hit by an archer actually.
The spear that the king(?) threw hit his horse(poor horse ).

Originally Posted by TB666

Well in the movie he got hit by an archer actually.
The spear that the king(?) threw hit his horse(poor horse ).

I think it was the lack of a siege going on in the scene that he was getting at. Was that battle supposed to be the Hydaspes too?

Originally Posted by William the Bastard

I think it was the lack of a siege going on in the scene that he was getting at. Was that battle supposed to be the Hydaspes too?

My guess I would say yeah, it was suppose to be that battle.

some critics said it was worse than TROY, TROY SUCKS!!!!! cept that seige scene though too fctional but too realistic in epic visual terms

Star Wars - it does say "a long time ago" at the beginning, so it is a historical movie...

U-571. The BRITISH captured Enigma, not the YANKS.